In Tamang and another v Act Security Ltd and another the EAT held that two claimants who settled their claims against the transferor respondent to a TUPE claim, could continue to pursue their claims against the transferees. While liability for a failure to inform and consult about a TUPE transfer was joint and several, the wording of the compromise agreement and the intention of the parties meant that the compromise agreement was a covenant not to sue one respondent, rather than a release of all respondents. The claimants were therefore entitled to pursue their claims against the remaining respondents.
Comment: This case highlights the importance of carefully wording a compromise agreement where the intention is to settle a claim against only one respondent where liability is joint and several. It is therefore also relevant to partial settlement in a discrimination claim, where more than one respondent is jointly and severally liable.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.